firehawk12
Subete no aware
I mean, you also get achievements for getting a hundred kills with every single gun in the game, so the game wants you to be a psychotic murderer anyway.
I don't get why people say Nathan Drake is an asshole that yearns to kill people
- Thread starter The Lamp
- Start date
Fancy Clown
Member
Not sure if your serious lol, but from what I gather the Tomb Raider reboot whent for a gritty survivalist tone where it would be more necessary to justify killing as it has more weight. And it didn't do it well at all.
Uncharted you fight bad guys who have nefarious plots and are out to kill you, it has a lighter pulp tone, and death doesn't carry the same weight.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, they try to have it both ways. So in 2 when the Russian guys are killing the Tibetan villagers, you're supposed to feel sad. Same with when that camera guy dies. Death is supposed to have some emotional weight to it, except when it's Drake and he's doing his video game stuff.
Airola
Member
That's something that's been said for quite a while now.
I disagree with that though. Those creatures are POISONOUS as they cause people be thrown to their deaths and if you're strong/big enough they will cause you to violently SHRINK. All this by just a tiniest touch. Imagine them advancing to a big city. Everyone will get killed by just touching them. It's hugely irresponsible from anyone to not destroy each and all of them.
And all of this is happening because the King Koopa wants to have a tiny little princess for whatever disgusting purpose his sick mind might come up with.
Fancy Clown
Member
In the first game Drake wanted to leave the island and escape without treasure. He only stuck around because his friend who he thought was dead is seen to be alive. And then he learns the treasure is an evil weapon that must be stopped.
In the second game it toys with his darker side a bid by his association with other thieves so he tries to dick over an evil dude, but come on. And even then he spends the rest of the game saving people, and learns the treasure is an evil weapon that must be stopped.
In the third game his motives are tied to a deeply personal flaw in his past and everyone questions why he's competing with people who are trying to kill him, but then he spends the rest of the game saving people, and learns the treasure is an evil weapon that must be stopped.
If you work for an evil dictator, pirate, or murderous secret organisation, it doesn't matter whether you have kids or a family, you're obviously going to be in the firing line and you're a bad person who probably had it coming.
That's not to say Nate himself is a great guy, he's reckless, greedy, violent and enjoys the thrill of questionable things, but he does have some semblance of a good heart, and has risked his skin to save humanity several times when it's counted, so there's that.
That's not to say Nate himself is a great guy, he's reckless, greedy, violent and enjoys the thrill of questionable things, but he does have some semblance of a good heart, and has risked his skin to save humanity several times when it's counted, so there's that.
Fancy Clown
Member
It doesn't have the same weight at all because it's tied to a very clear and simple morality. It's sad when good guys die, it's not sad when bad guys die. It's the same thing in Indian Jones. Do people weep for the dude with a sword Jones shot in cold blood and complain how people only feel for the good guys?
And even when the good guys die it's only ever sad in a "movie" way, not in a ruminate on the nature of death and murder and despair tragic way.
FonkyByNature
Member
This, a billion times !!!
Damigos
Member
Well said
Matrix XII
Member
Seriously I'm having a hard time with this one. Why do we care if Nathan Drake is a nice guy or a mass murderer? It's a video game. Doesn't make a difference to me one way or the other.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
If you've seen any war movie though, like anyone made after the Vietnam War, the soldiers inevitably feel bad about taking a human life. Heck, that stuff gets back ported to WW2 stories where even in Band of Brothers, Captain Winters feels bad for shooting a German kid.
Drake feels absolutely no emotions as he sees the life drains out of someone's eyes as he's breaking their neck. I wouldn't be surprised if he enjoyed it. lol
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Because it's a conversation? A thing people do. Especially on video game forums, about video game characters. Nobody actually cares a significant amount, it's just something to occupy the mind with in times of inactivity.
On-topic: Drake is a psychopath, no doubt about it. But a lot of characters are the same. It's okay to play as a psychopath, as long as you identify what they are doing is wrong and don't think it's okay to go climbing mountains to throw people off them.
How is that different from any other action game?
Fancy Clown
Member
Yes because war movies are not light pulp adventures disconnected from reality... They are about real tagedies, not a bunch of witty people exploring impossible ruins looking for supernatural treasure. Like why would you even compare Band of Brothers to Uncharted lol.
In the first game they find Sully looooooong before they find out about any greater threat to the treasure. When they reunite, it's simply a case of "right, back to finding the treasure".
UC2, was a case of trying to dick over a "client". He doesn't know/care who it is at this point. After getting played himself, he's bailed from jail joins up with Chloe and Sully to find the treasure first (again). At this point nobody other than Flynn has directly wronged Nathan in any way (and considering what the original plan was, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on... especially after beating on a load of innocent guards to get there in the first place). Once they pick up the trail, it's straight into neck-snapping and putting holes in heads. Camera guy is dead because of him. Chloe only needs rescuing because of him (and her own greed) etc. The dangers of the treasure don't come into play until Nepal, more than halfway through the game.
Haven't played UC3, so won't comment on it.
In both games I played, the treasure only stops being a priority to Drake once it becomes clear that the treasure itself has ancient nastiness along with it. In UC1, they still happily made off with a bunch of the safer loot anyway (wtf did they even spend this on?).
I say this everytime the issue comes up: Drake was made too well, too real, too relatible and likable to be everyone's shooter protagonist. His world too closely mirrors our own to justify a game's body count. We want to hang with Drake but are conflicted with his mass murdering ways. So he doesn't get a free pass like all those space marines.
People should probably just get over it. I think we are lucky to have got a character like Drake in video games. His impact is quite exceptional given how many threads he's spawned through the years.
People should probably just get over it. I think we are lucky to have got a character like Drake in video games. His impact is quite exceptional given how many threads he's spawned through the years.
Fancy Clown
Member
Haha I just think you're applying real world morality way too hard for something who's tone clearly doesn't mesh with that. Like one of those innocent guards who's head you smash against a wall. In real life he'd like be in a coma and his family would become destitute and they'd sue Drake and it would be a tragedy and then you'd have a point. But it's clearly a damn adventure game so he'd wake up and be fine and shake his fist at the air and shout "Draaaake!". It's all about tone and subject matter, I don't know why that's such a stumbling block for some people with this series haha
VendettaRed07
Member
I mean it's not really an issue for me as I don't take the story seriously anyway
But I do think there should be better motivation for drake as to how he gets caught in these situations to make it feel like he is actually forced into this or some sort of better characterization of the enemies he kills as a more organized terrorist group or something instead of just seemingly endless stream of random dudes.
But I do think there should be better motivation for drake as to how he gets caught in these situations to make it feel like he is actually forced into this or some sort of better characterization of the enemies he kills as a more organized terrorist group or something instead of just seemingly endless stream of random dudes.
Trigonometrize.
Member
It sounds bad on paper but I have zero less fun with the games because of it so whatever.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
That was kinda like U3. But they're not connected to any of the other games I think.
I enjoy the Uncharted series (even the Vita one!), but when I think about them too much they kinda fall apart. The only way Nathan knows how to interact with his world is through combat. They're like arcade shooters with good set pieces and a tiny bit of wandering.
Agreed 100 percent.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
You modern gamers are such wishy washy wimps. In my day our characters murdered hundreds just to get to the right side of the level.
It's really Drake's personality as a sensitive charmer and the low stakes that causes the dissonance. If he was a hard bitten growly Marcus Fenix type trying to survive or a worn down determined Master Chief solider type trying to save the universe then you'd get none of these posts.
Instead he's making wisecracks and joking while following a map that might turn out to be a hoax. Killing hundreds while doing that is you know, odd. To fit with the conceit the game really should have far more thieving and exploring than it does.
Instead he's making wisecracks and joking while following a map that might turn out to be a hoax. Killing hundreds while doing that is you know, odd. To fit with the conceit the game really should have far more thieving and exploring than it does.
It's not really a stumbling block, or a big deal to me (this may be the first time I've actually discussed it). You presented a bunch of scenarios that were supposed to be justifications for his actions in each game, and I'm saying that don't really hold up for these reasons.
I'm just saying that it's pretty clear why some people see the character as a bit of an asshole and a murderer. Because he is really. I get that it's all fictional nonsense, but that doesn't mean you should hand-wave absolutely everything away. Those writing the story can provide some justification for these choices, even if the scale of the choices is out of wack for gameplay reasons. In Tomb Raider, Lara is given reasons for killing people, that don't simply stem from "I want that, gimme". Obviously repercussions that occur off-screen (such as when a guard wakes up, etc) aren't within scope of the story, and shouldn't be brought up... but that's different from the stuff that the game's explicitly showing to occur, and the choices the character constantly makes that are clearly going to necessitate killing a bunch more people.
Even when discussing extremely ridiculous characters and settings, the protagonists usually have a better reasoning, that justifies their actions. Hell, even fucking Duke Nukem starts his game out with an attempt to save the world (and the women). It's not actually that common for a game "hero" to cause so much shit with such selfish reasoning.
Fancy Clown
Member
Gonna just disagree here. The reasons and motivations are 100% suitable for the tone. Indiana Jones thinks it's worth killing tons of people, causing wanton destruction, and putting friends at risk for the sake of putting an artifact in a museum. Han Solo is a space theif who shoots first. Nathan Drake is really no different.
Duke Nukem has such a ridiculous tone that it wouldn't matter if his motivation was a bad guy stole his sandwhich. Look at John Wick, dude murders everyone because they killed his dog.
Different tones of stories require different levels of motivation. The Uncharted series has a very clear tone and morality. If you took those actions and put them in the real world, or something super gritty like the Tomb Raider reboot yeah he'd totally be a terrifying murderous psychopath, but that's not the tone so he isn't.
For me the tone of the games just isn't lighthearted or over the top enough for me to stop thinking about what I'm doing. Maybe this is a case of graphics having reached a certain level of realism where I will automatically get bothered by it unless its greatly exaggerated because then I don't think about it as a real life action. The way Drake strangles unsuspecting enemies doesn't mesh with being a likable, lighthearted character in my eyes. It becomes a kind of tonal limbo where it's either too serious to turn of your brain or not serious enough for the illusion to hold up.
It's the tone. In something like Die Hard you'll get a witty remark but filled with sarcasm, tension and exhaustion. Here you have Drake gloating about how good he is and commenting on someone's ass.
It doesn't bother me that much though, what bothers me are the impossible pull up jumps he can do while climbing debris. That just shatters my suspension of disbelief every time, not to mention they're incredibly boring sequences.
It doesn't bother me that much though, what bothers me are the impossible pull up jumps he can do while climbing debris. That just shatters my suspension of disbelief every time, not to mention they're incredibly boring sequences.
It's ignoring an element of the character because it's uncomfortable to explore, disreharding the body count. Drake is the self-appointed lord of treasure, entitled to it and willing to kill for it. He doesn't do it altruistically.
Drake is a murderous sociopath. I want Sully to tell it to him straight in Uncharted 4.
Drake is a murderous sociopath. I want Sully to tell it to him straight in Uncharted 4.
Alright, I'm about to admit something I would generally prefer to persistently dodge. I've never actually watched through an Indiana Jones movie (at least not since I would be old enough to remember it), so I can't say much about that. Star Wars either (though afaik, Han Solo isn't the movie's "hero" character anyway, which would be Luke)... I guess it's more acceptable that I haven't watched John Wick also.
The Duke Nukem example was ridiculous on purpose. The point is that you can take all sort of characters from gaming's history and they're nearly all more characteristically "good guys" than Drake is. Master Chief, Sonic the Hedgehog, Team Rainbow... it pretty much doesn't matter... they're nearly all a case of having a mission that's made explicitly clear to benefit more than just themselves. In cases where this isn't true, the characters are generally shown to be anti-heroes, and their story is often one of redemption or whatever. There are very few games (of any tone) where the hero only does the good thing, because the bad thing pretty much ceases to be an option.. and that's why Drake gets singled out for this. There's few characters in gaming where the question "so, why doesn't he just... you know... stop?" doesn't have a very compelling reason.
In fact, there has been a recent character that apparently suffers from something similar (though I haven't played it yet). Aiden Pearce in Watch_Dogs... and he wasn't too popular either. He lacked one-liners though, so nobody bothers to defend his character.
That's a pretty mean thing to say.
psynergylover
Member
Notthisshitagain.jpg
It's a videogames folks.
It's a videogames folks.
Fancy Clown
Member
Bruh, get on those movies.
As far as Drake goes, the games stories go out of their way in the character development of Drake to show how he's basically a selfish but but lovable rogue who just wants treasure, to actively trying to save the world. Yeah he doesn't start out as a "I'm gonna save the world" dude, but that's what makes him more relatable and believable than the other characters even when it's a TPS where you shoot hundreds of dudes. And even when it's revealed that the treasure is evil, he still could stop and choose not to destroy it. The key part of the second game was choosing between his selfish and heroic sides as represented by Chloe and Elena respectively, and Chloe's like "don't try and destroy the treasure that's suicide", but Drake's like "nah" and does it anyway because he overcomes his flaws which makes him heroic. As far as why he keeps going on adventures, beyond the need for sequels, that's what the third game is all about although I'm not sure if you would be satisfied with how it develops that, and the 4th sounds like it might push that even further.
It's moment's like this why I wonder why some people have a GAF account.
Yea, I can agree with that to some extent. There are definitely times where Drake shows that he's not completely devoid of redeeming qualities, like some of adversaries may be. Even in UC1, he made an attempt to save Eddie.. despite his attempts to have Drake killed throughout the entire game. Those moments kinda give the impression that Drake is somewhat selective about those whose life he values. If you're someone he has history with, then he'll probably try to help you, even if you don't see eye to eye... everyone else though? Pfft.
I'm less convinced about the stuff at the end of UC2 though. I mean... I'm definitely not the most heroic of personalities, but if I had reason to believe someone that's made numerous attempts on my life was possibly about to become immortal, and possibly alter (or ruin) the world forever... I wouldn't be leaving either. That says more about Chloe than anyone else to me... and mostly just suggests that she has nobody else on the outside to give a shit about, and so any potential shit future is still preferable to a likely death today.
And yea.. I've been meaning to watch both series for quite a while now, but get endlessly distracted by newer stuff.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
To remind us that things are video games, of course. I'm going to start going into every gaming thread to make sure people are reminded of that fact.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
It's a game series that tries to create realistic human interactions in the cutscenes, and then has ridiculous human interactions throughout it's gameplay.
I mean, yes it's a game, but you can see why the ludonarrative dissonance is strong in this one.
My life is a game. I just refilled my coffee meter.
That's probably the root cause.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
I never heard of this until I started GAF. I don't get it. Why do people single out Uncharted ? It's a video game don't take it too serious.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
Uncharted isn't a serious game thats supposed to be realistic like TLOU. People tend to forget that.
GifGafIsTheBestGaf
Member
pretty much this
lol
when people is just messing around like in this gif i actually dont mind it is a thing though
Dangansona
Member
I'm not even going to say it's a video game because I don't think that's fair. Maybe it's a alright to dismiss is at general entertainment since movies do the same thing, but ultimately I think OP is right. He kills bad people in mostly self defense.
The whole "Nathan Drake is the real villain" is just people failing to be clever.
Edit: especially since they them get to use the fancy word "ludonarrative dissonance." I can picture Arthur Gies touching himself at the thought of it.
The whole "Nathan Drake is the real villain" is just people failing to be clever.
Edit: especially since they them get to use the fancy word "ludonarrative dissonance." I can picture Arthur Gies touching himself at the thought of it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Eh, Indiana Jone's body count in each movie is still like 2-3 people though, he spends most of the movie doing something else. This is just sort of a genre problem, the closer you get to capturing the vibe of something else the more the seams stand out. Its like if you made a video game adaption of The Shining that was a 3D platformer
Fancy Clown
Member
I would totally be down for a 3D platformer adaptation of The Shining
Glorified G
Member
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I refuse to believe anyone would put this much thought and analysis over a videogame character.
It's much more likely that this is the internet, and some people are actually this bored and decide to entertain themselves and troll away,
It's much more likely that this is the internet, and some people are actually this bored and decide to entertain themselves and troll away,
It's a joke. It was always a joke.
If video games are to be treated as an art and respected as such, this excuse doesn't fly anymore.